Elect Tim Kaine Governor of Virginia

In the Kingsport Times-News' endorsement of Jerry Kilgore for Governor of Virginia, the discussion focused on Mr. Kilgore's record as Attorney General and his "strong law-and-order credentials." Mr. Kilgore's credentials as Attorney General do not stop there. He entered office at a time when Virginia's economy was at its worst in decades, and Mr. Kilgore did everything he could do to thwart the attempts by Governor Warner and Lt. Governor Kaine to improve the economic situation of the Commonwealth. Mr. Kilgore opposed all of the initiatives that eventually led Virginia out of near-bankruptcy while Lt. Governor Kaine fought hard to see Gov. Warner's proposals enacted.

If we look carefully at Mr. Kilgore's current economic proposals for the Commonwealth, there are two issues that must be addressed: privatizing the Virginia Retirement System; and, shifting the tax burden from the state level to the local level. Let us consider each of these in turn.

By choosing to privatize the VRS, much as the national Republican Party would like to privatize Social Security, Mr. Kilgore would offer a large percentage of workers in our region an unacceptable reduction in retirement benefits. For the southwestern region of Virginia, privatizing the VRS would impact all state and local government employees who pay into the VRS, in particular teachers in the public schools of the region. In some localities, the public school system is the largest single employer. Privatizing the VRS would have far-reaching and lasting negative impact for all of Southwestern Virginia.

Mr. Kilgore would like to place the taxation burden on localities. He conceals his true intentions by "pledg[ing] to give localities the ability, through referendum, to decide taxation issues for themselves" while planning to reduce state taxes by substantial margins (although I have yet to see in writing his complete taxation 'relief' plan). By 'offering' localities the ability to "decide taxation issues for themselves," Mr. Kilgore has essentially said to the people of Southwestern Virginia that they are on their own. State taxation funds will no longer be available to localities to help offset the costs of operating schools, landfills, sheriff's offices, prosecutor's offices, and other local necessities. The entire tax burden (at least substantially MORE of the tax burden) will shift to local Boards of Supervisors. Do you think your property taxes are high now? Just wait until Mr. Kilgore is elected Governor and see how high they climb! Does he honestly expect Southwestern Virginia to believe that shifting the tax burden back on us will be good for our communities? Does he really expect us to buy his argument that a Kilgore governorship will be good for the counties and localities of Southwestern Virginia?

Mr. Kilgore's "law-and-order credentials" certainly qualify him to be a local sheriff, but nothing he has done as Attorney General (in his brief stint in that office) can recommend him to be Governor of the Commonwealth of Virginia. There is only one choice on November 8 for Virginians, but more especially for Southwestern Virginians. That choice will keep our economy strong and keep money in the state coffers (not give it back to the wealthiest of us). That choice will be the man who protects retirement and maintains a fair taxation balance between state and local government. That choice is the man who has helped to lead Virginia out of dire economic straits, and who will continue the successful policies of his predecessor. That choice is TIM KAINE for Governor on November 8.

BUSHISM of the Day

"Those of us who spent time in the agricultural sector and in the heartland, we understand how unfair the death penalty is." ---Omaha, NE; 28 February 2001

I did not realize there was such a strong correlation between the heartland and the death penalty.

BUSHISM of the Day

"Didn't we already give them a break at the top?"
---To economic advisors urging the elimination of taxes on dividends, as quoted by Paul O'Neill; 26 November 2002


Did he actually own up to the upper-class tax break, or is it just my misunderestimation of his commentary?

BUSHISM of the Day

Asked what he imagined reporters eat, then-Governor Bush replied, "Brie and cheese." ---23 August 2001

BUSHISMs of the Day

"I know the human being and fish can coexist peacefully." ---Saginaw, MI, 29 September 2000


"I must confess. It did confuse some of the folks at the Crawford, Texas, coffee shop when I was traveling around the country with Theodore Kennedy." ---13 May 2002

Yes, I suppose it would since no one knows who Theodore Kennedy is. Do you mean Edward (Ted) Kennedy (Senior U.S. Senator from Massachusetts) by any chance, Mr. President?


"I know how hard it is for you to put food on your family." ---27 January 2000

See this link for some more fun times with Mr. Bush and his 'speechalist'.


"I also understand how tender the free enterprise system can be." ---9 July 2002

Is it kind and loving also?

BUSHISM of the Day

"Unfairly but truthfully, our party has been tagged as being against things. Anti-immigrant, for example. And we're not a party of anti-immigrants. Quite the opposite. We're a party that welcomes people." ---1 July 2000

BUSHISM of the Day

"We need to counter the shock wave of the evildoer by having individual rate cuts accelerated and by thinking about tax rebates." ---4 October 2001


I had not really recognized how quickly Bush's administration was working to use Sept 11, 2001 to its political advantage until I read this quote. We can counter the evildoer by giving people tax rebates. Who needs to ask the nation for sacrifices in the face of danger when we can go about Republican business as usual and give the rich all of their (sweat-free) money back to them while placing a heavier tax burden on the middle class, and selling all of our debt to the one great nation-state that remains a military threat to this nation? Is it no wonder that the number of people living below the poverty line in the U.S. increased by nearly four million people last year? The policies of Reagan-Bush have proven once again that 'trickle-down' economics is a fallacy, and that all they do is decrease the size of the middle class. It is policies like these that Karl Marx had in mind that would lead to the elimination of the middle class and the eventual overthrow of the bourgeousie by the proletariat. Our world has never seen a truly Marxist state, but give Bush and his ilk enough time and we will.

BUSHISM of the Day

"But the true threats to stability and peace are these nations that are not very transparent, that hide behind the -- that don't let people in to take a look and see what they're up to. They're very kind of authoritarian regimes. The true threat is whether or not one of these people decide, peak of anger, try to hold us hostage, ourselves; the Israelis, for example, to whom we'll defend, offer our defenses; the South Koreans." ---Media roundtable, Washington D.C., 13 March 2001


Okay, some commentary on this Bush quote: Mr. Bush claims that the true threats are regimes that hide their true intentions, that mask their true actions in the public sphere, that keep people in the dark about their policies. It takes one to know one, Mr. Bush! A government that tries to work behind close doors without full disclosure to its citizens can very well be a threat to peace and stability throughout the world. Under the Bush Doctrine, the United States is one of these countries.

I can't even comment on anything else from this quote because I don't really understand it. Anyone?

BUSHISM of the Day

"Let me put it to you this way, I am not a revengeful person." ---Time magazine, 25 December 2000

BUSHISM of the Day

"I admit it, I am not one of the great linguists." --To Tom Brokaw, Inside the Real West Wing, 23 January 2001

Quote of the Day

"To be poor in America was to be invisible, but not after this week, not after those images of the bedraggled masses at the Superdome, convention center and airport. No one can claim that the post-Reagan orthodoxy of low taxes and small government, which does wonders for the extremely rich, also inevitably does wonders for the extremely poor. What was that about a rising tide lifting all boats? What if you don't have a boat?"

- Eugene Robinson, columnist for The Washington Post

BUSHISM of the Day

"I want you to know that farmers are not going to be secondary thoughts to a Bush administration. They will be in the forethought of our thinking." ---10 August 2000


Right up front, there, in the front row. That's right...no more worrying about the second row of up front, no indeed. Front row...right up front. When we think we are thinking about thinking we think about upfront thoughts first. Any questions?

BUSHISM of the Day

"Our priorities is our faith." ---10 October 2000

BUSHISM of the Day

"I've changed my style somewhat, as you know. I'm less--I pontificate less, although it may be hard to tell it from this show. And I'm more interacting with people." ---13 February 2000 on Meet the Press

BUSHISM of the Day

"We need an energy bill that encourages consumption." ---23 September 2002

Well, from the looks of the new energy bill passed by Congress this summer, I think the president got what he wanted. However, if gasoline prices continue to climb, I doubt his desires will continue to see fruition.

BUSHISMs of the Day

"It's very interesting when you think about it, the slaves who left here to go to America, because of their steadfast and their religion and their belief in freedom, helped change America." ---Dakar, Senegal; 8 July 2003

What exactly is a "steadfast"? Does anybody know? Also, wasn't the religion of the African slaves mostly voodoo (or something similar) until they got to America? Finally, let me just ask a hypothetical question: If you were a slave, taken far away from your home to work in the fields and homes of people you did not particularly like, would you believe in freedom? or would you just prefer to live a life of quiet desparation? I'm not sure...


"It is not Reaganesque to support a tax plan that is Clinton in nature." ---23 February 2000

Does GW really believe that anyone could possibly mistake him for either Reagan or Clinton? I realize that he does resemble Reagan in some ways...cowboy hat, boots, the 'duh' look on his face most of the time....but he obviously has neither the intelligence nor mass appeal of Clinton. Smell the coffee, George!


"Well, it's an unimaginable honor to be the president during the Fourth of July of this country. It means what these words say, for starters. The great inalienable rights of our country. We're blessed with such values in America. And I--it's--I'm a proud man to be the nation based upon such wonderful values." ---At the Jefferson Memorial, Washington D.C.; 2 July 2001

I'm just glad to know that GWBush is a nation unto himself...Saves face for the rest of us, if you ask me.


"There is book smart and the kind of smart that helps do calculus. But smart is also instinct and judgment and common sense. Smart comes in all kinds of different ways." ---19 September 2000

But apparently "smart" is not a pre-requisite for being president...however, it may be necessary for being a GOOD president! Also, just a quick comment as someone who 'does calculus'--I've found that a great deal of my math 'smart' comes from books. I'm confused about the difference mentioned in the first sentence above....

BUSHISM of the Day

"Security is the essential roadblock to achieving the road map to peace." --25 July 2003

Okay...so let's get this straight. SECURITY is a roadblock to PEACE. Uh huh...so is that like saying, "Sleep is the essential roadblock to being awake," or is it more like saying, "Depression is the essential roadblock to committing suicide?" Can anyone clarify this for me?

BUSHISM of the Day

"A tax cut is really one of the anecdotes to coming out of an economic illness." --18 September 2000

Recess Appointment of John Bolton as Ambassador to the U.N.

Mr. Bolton nor President Bush have kept it a secret that the intent behind Bolton's appointment as U.N. Ambassador was to force the issue of reform. The problem, of course, with the Bolton appointment began to come out during the Senate confirmation hearings. Republican members of the Senate became some of the most vocal opponents to Bolton's confirmation. The administration would have the American people believe that the confirmation process was being held up by the 'obstructionist Democrats,' but that was NOT the case in the least.

Rumors were running rampant that Colin Powell, formerly Bolton's boss, and Richard Armitage, formerly Asst SecState, were working behind the scenes--giving Senators a thorough knowledge of Bolton's background and behavior patterns--to ensure that Bolton did not receive confirmation. A key Senator in the fight to defeat Bolton was close Bush supporter and ally John Voinovich of Ohio. Would these influential members of the Republican Party really have spoken out against Bush's nominee if there were not SERIOUS character flaws? Of course, the most serious flaw in Bolton's character was his inability to deal with his subordinates in a professional manner. If the man is unable to deal with subordinates professionally, then how can we expect him to deal with the Ambassadors of other nations professionally and civilly?

The great problem with Bush's recess appointment is that, more in this case than in any other, the President has usurped the balance of power; he has removed the confirmation process from the Senate in order to place an incompetent ally into a place of power. Certainly, all presidents have used recess appointments to place their nominees into office, but I know of no other appointment that has been made exclusively to flaunt an ideological agenda at the American people.

This appointment goes too far. It is time for moderate Republicans to stop thinking about political power structures and to start thinking about the good of the nation. For moderate Republicans to continue to support the ideological agenda of the far right does the nation an injustice at a time when the nation needs unity more than ever. The far right agenda offers division and confrontation, not unity and not justice.

Now is the time for the moderates and the liberals to come together to govern the nation in an effective way. A government not based solely on an ideological agenda, but based on what is best for the country and what is best for its citizens. If the recess appointment of John Bolton does nothing else, it should create the realization NOW rather than LATER that the administration of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney is not looking out for ALL of the citizens of the United States, but is instead following a far right wing ideological agenda. This agenda is designed to help 1% of Americans (I'll let you guess who they are), abandon the middle class, and return the U.S. to a time when Social Security, Medicare, and other entitlements were not a 'burden' to the country. Do we really want to destroy some of the greatest anti-poverty programs ever known to man? Let Bolton's appointment be a wakeup call to all of us!

BUSHISMs of the Day

Well, since it has been awhile, I thought I would post not just ONE Bushism, but a few to get us back in the mood. Here we go--

BUSHISM #1
"I think it's very important for world leaders to understand that when a new administration comes in, the new administration will be running the foreign policy." ---USA Today, 12 Jan 2001

We have some really stupid leaders around the world if they didn't already understand this fact. Or, maybe it's just that Mr. Bush THINKS they are stupid. Actions speak louder than words, don't they?


BUSHISM #2
"I am determined to keep the process on the road to peace." ---10 June 2003

Well, of course by 'peace', Mr. Bush means 'war', right? What evidence is there that this president has any interest in peace at all? He said of himself that he was 'the war president.' Come on, Georgie-boy, who do you think you are fooling with this 'road to peace' rhetoric? Remember, "...fool me once...shame on you. Fool me...won't get fooled again!"


BUSHISM #3
"I want it to be said that the Bush administration was a results-oriented administration, because I believe the results of focusing our attention and energy on teaching children to read and having an education system that's responsive to the child and to the parents, as opposed to mired in a system that refuses to change, will make America what we want it to be--a literate country and a hopefuller country." ---11 Jan 2001

I know, I know...anybody could have made a blunder like "hopefuller", but come on...really???


Okay, okay....ONE more...
BUSHISM #4
"I'm gonna talk about the ideal world, Chris. I've read--I understand reality. If you're asking me as the president, would I understand reality, I do." ---appearing on Hardball with Chris Matthews on MSNBC; 31 May 2000

It is my understanding that the above quote was in response to a question about abortion; however, I really have to ask myself, was Mr. Bush telling Chris and the American people the truth when he said that he understands reality? I'm not sure he was. In fact, I think maybe he was also lying when he said, rather matter of factly for him, that "I've read..." Do any of us really believe that? Liar, liar!!


Well, I can't resist this one. It has just been too long since I have posted these, so here is one more for the day.
BUSHISM #5
"I'm thrilled to be here in the bread basket of America because it gives me a chance to remind our fellow citizens that we have an advantage here in America--we can feed ourselves." ---Stockton, California; 23 August 2002

Well, a couple of comments about this one. First, when did California move to the center of the United States? Traditionally, the 'breadbasket' of the U.S. has been considered the central U.S. from Texas up to the Upper Peninsula of Michigan, at least according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and this news report from the Detroit News about drought conditions. Second, do not all adult animals 'feed themselves' in one way or another? Perhaps I am a bit picky here, but couldn't he have just said something like, "we grow our own food?" Oh, well...

More BUSHISMs to come...

Paul Krugman Points Out Some Interesting Facts About the 'Intelligent Design' Movement

NYTimes columnist Paul Krugman, in his latest exposition, writes that the intelligent design movement is a direct result of the brainstorm of the founder of the neo-conservative movement. In 1978, Irving Kristol began urging corporations to make large donations to ideologically conservative individuals and groups who would speak out in favor of certain principles over others, whether they had the scientific research to support their claims or not. The neo-cons first attacks were against the established economic theories of the day, arguing in favor of supply-side economics--the idea that huge tax cuts could help to improve the economy in significant ways--even though there was no existing data to support the argument, and no plans to conduct any research into it.

Mr. Krugman argues that we can see the continuing effects of the neo-conservative agenda today in the attacks upon the established science of global warming, and most recently in the attacks upon evolutionary theory. Krugman writes, "Corporations followed [Kristol's] lead, pouring a steady stream of money into think tanks that created a sort of parallel intellectual universe, a world of 'scholars' whose careers are based on toeing an ideological line, rather than on doing research that stands up to scrutiny by their peers." It is this need to toe the ideological line that most distresses me about the current presidential administration. This administration creates its information where it sees fit to meet the ideological objectives that have been set forth. Just as Paul O'Neill, former Secretary of the Treasury in this administration, stated in his personal account of his time at Treasury, this administration does not look at the facts and develop policy. This administration develops policy and then finds 'facts' to support it. It is this political design that Irving Kristol mobilized, and it has now taken on a life of its own.

The neo-conservative movement identifies those issues that are not ideologically in line with it, finds 'scholars' who are willing to sell out in order to support the cause, does not offer true scientific research to support claims but instead offers good public relations machines, and attacks those established principles which they oppose in a concerted defamatory way. Krugman argues that even "the self-policing nature of science - scientific truth is determined by peer review, not public opinion - can be exploited by skilled purveyors of cultural resentment." When the neo-con organization opposes an established scientific position, they can throw the old argument at the public that 'those people', whoever they may be at the moment, think they are smarter than the average person; they argue in effect that 'those people' are elistist. As Krugman puts it, "Do virtually all biologists agree that Darwin was right? Well, that just shows that they're elitists who think they're smarter than the rest of us."

Krugman argues that the original attempt to discredit Darwinism, called 'creation science', was "too crude to fool anyone." However, the 'intelligent design' movement has essentially done only one thing: attempt to discredit evolution by making claims that 'evolution is only one theory' or that 'there are gaps in the theory of evolution." Even the attention given to the movement by the Catholic Cardinal Schonborn of Vienna uses ideology to support his claims, not scientific study. He, like the rest of the neo-con movement, attempts to argue that Darwinism is more ideology than science while ignoring science completely to support his own claims.

Here is the methodology employed by the neo-conservative movement. These are the tactics that we must become aware of and that we must make others aware of. Fight the good fight. The thing I have recently realized is that although I am a liberal thinker, I am not an ideological liberal. I am liberal because when I look at the real facts, I am required to come to grips with these facts. The best way to do that is from a liberal viewpoint, not a strict conservative ideology. In my mind, to be liberal means to be willing to make adjustments as necessary to find the best answers to the most difficult problems. To be conservative in these times means to listen to someone explain the party line and follow it blindly, without question and without consulting any facts.

If those are the options, I will choose being able to think for myself!

Bush Speaks Out About 'Intelligent Design'

Our illustrious president has now had his say about the brewing debate regarding the teaching of 'intelligent design' theory. Although opponents of the theory point out that NO actual scientific studies have been conducted to support the theory, proponents continue to refer to 'intelligent design' as alternative science to the theory of evolution. Cardinal Schonborn, as we have discussed in this forum previously, has written that evolution is "not science but ideology." I would argue that 'intelligent design' comes closer to that statement than evolutionary theory. At least evolution has years of scientific research and piles of scientific data to support its arguments. Where is the same scientific inquiry for 'intelligent design'?

Once again, I have no problem with the notion of an omniscient creator who provided the initial energy and the rules, laws, and guiding principles of the universe; however, what I do have a problem with is the desire of the religious right to insinuate its ideology into our schools' classrooms. If there is evidence to support intelligent design, then let's see it and have an academic debate rather than a political one. President Bush's statement that he believes students should be exposed to "different schools of thought" is just another example of his lack of understanding of things scientific. Mr. Bush and all of his ideological cronies should leave the science to scientists, the education to educators, and religious indoctrination to churches and families!

John G. Roberts, Supreme Court Nominee

Some comments on Roberts from the 1 July 2005 edition of The Washington Post:

--"long been considered one of the Republicans' heavyweights amid the largely Democratic Washington legal establishment"

--practiced law at the D.C. lawfirm of Hogan & Hartson from 1986-89, 1993-2003

--Principal Deputy Solicitor General in Bush41 White House, 1989-93

--served in the Reagan White House as both an aide to the Attorney General, 1981-82, and an aide to the White House Counsel, 1982-86

--attended Harvard College and Harvard Law School

--clerked for Justice William H. Rehnquist

--"the question marks about Roberts have always been ideological"

--"his Republican party loyalties are undoubted, [but] he is not a 'movement conservative', and some on the party's right-wing doubt his commitment to their cause"

--"His paper record is thin"

In my mind, all of these comments (and other information about Roberts that has been published since his nomination) coalesce to demonstrate the potential that the man has an a Supreme Court Justice. Certainly, there is no doubt that the man is an intellectual--a quality highly desired of Justices, in my opinion; however, the question remains whether he is an intellectual in the Antonin Scalia sense (who seems determined to undo any liberal interpretation of constitutional law in the past one hundred years) or whether he is an intellectual in the Sandra Day-O'Connor sense (who judged cases individually without any apparent ideological goals in mind, and who seemed to be the voice of intellectual moderation on the Court).

I certainly believe Roberts can become an effective Justice, but will he be effective because he joins the other ideological conservatives on the Court to confound the course of American jurisprudence? or will he be effective because he becomes the voice of moderate reason--always testing the law on a case-by-case basis, effectively keeping the balance on the Court? At this point, I have no reason to believe the Senate will not confirm Judge Roberts' appointment to the high Court. Let us only hope that Roberts follows the same path as his predecessor rather than just occupying the same seat.

Commentary on 'Intelligent Design' from Natural History magazine

From a 2002 article in Natural History magazine, debating evolution vs intelligent design. The commentary is a summary of the recent history of the intelligent design movement by a "philosopher and cultural historian who has monitored its history for more than a decade." I have included here the entire text of the commentary and provided a link above.

						The Newest Evolution of Creationism Intelligent design is about politics and religion, not science. By Barbara Forrest The infamous August 1999 decision by the Kansas Board of Education to delete references to evolution from Kansas science standards was heavily influenced by advocates of intelligent-design theory. Although William A. Dembski, one of the movement's leading figures, asserts that "the empirical detectability of intelligent causes renders intelligent design a fully scientific theory," its proponents invest most of their efforts in swaying politicians and the public, not the scientific community.
						Launched by Phillip E. Johnson's book Darwin on Trial (1991), the intelligent-design movement crystallized in 1996 as the Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture (CRSC), sponsored by the Discovery Institute, a conservative Seattle think tank. Johnson, a law professor whose religious conversion catalyzed his antievolution efforts, assembled a group of supporters who promote design theory through their writings, financed by CRSC fellowships. According to an early mission statement, the CRSC seeks "nothing less than the overthrow of materialism and its damning cultural legacies."
						Johnson refers to the CRSC members and their strategy as the Wedge, analogous to a wedge that splits a log -- meaning that intelligent design will liberate science from the grip of "atheistic naturalism." Ten years of Wedge history reveal its most salient features: Wedge scientists have no empirical research program and, consequently, have published no data in peer-reviewed journals (or elsewhere) to support their intelligent-design claims. But they do have an aggressive public relations program, which includes conferences that they or their supporters organize, popular books and articles, recruitment of students through university lectures sponsored by campus ministries, and cultivation of alliances with conservative Christians and influential political figures.
						The Wedge aims to "renew" American culture by grounding society's major institutions, especially education, in evangelical religion. In 1996, Johnson declared: "This isn't really, and never has been, a debate about science. It's about religion and philosophy." According to Dembski, intelligent design "is just the Logos of John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory." Wedge strategists seek to unify Christians through a shared belief in "mere" creation, aiming -- in Dembski's words -- "at defeating naturalism and its consequences." This enables intelligent-design proponents to coexist in a big tent with other creationists who explicitly base their beliefs on a literal interpretation of Genesis.
						"As Christians," writes Dembski, "we know naturalism is false. Nature is not self-sufficient. … Nonetheless neither theology nor philosophy can answer the evidential question whether God's interaction with the world is empirically detectable. To answer this question we must look to science." Jonathan Wells, a biologist, and Michael J. Behe, a biochemist, seem just the CRSC fellows to give intelligent design the ticket to credibility. Yet neither has actually done research to test the theory, much less produced data that challenges the massive evidence accumulated by biologists, geologists, and other evolutionary scientists. Wells, influenced in part by Unification Church leader Sun Myung Moon, earned Ph.D.'s in religious studies and biology specifically "to devote my life to destroying Darwinism." Behe sees the relevant question as whether "science can make room for religion." At heart, proponents of intelligent design are not motivated to improve science but to transform it into a theistic enterprise that supports religious faith.
						Wedge supporters are at present trying to insert intelligent design into Ohio public-school science standards through state legislation. Earlier the CRSC advertised its science education site by assuring teachers that its "Web curriculum can be appropriated without textbook adoption wars" -- in effect encouraging teachers to do an end run around standard procedures. Anticipating a test case, the Wedge published in the Utah Law Review a legal strategy for winning judicial sanction. Recently the group almost succeeded in inserting into the federal No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 a "sense of the Senate" that supported the teaching of intelligent design. So the movement is advancing, but its tactics are no substitute for real science.

The Roman Catholic Church and Evolution

Well, I am finally back to my blog! Covered up this summer with first one thing and then another, I have been remiss in posting regular commentaries (not since June 11!). My god, what was I thinking? So here I am; back again to tackle the ongoing and ugly debate about evolution and 'intelligent design'--now falling under the auspices of Cardinal Christoph Schonborn of Vienna.

A few weeks ago, the Cardinal wrote a commentary for the NYTimes in which he attacked the notion that the Roman Catholic Church is accepting of the scientifically-established Theory of Evolution. Schonborn argues that the church is okay with the notion of common ancestry, but not with the neo-Darwinian viewpoint that evolution occurs randomly and devoid of some external higher power acting consciously to create new life. Apparently, even the new pope has now taken up this argument by saying in effect that each new life is a creation (or re-creation, I suppose) of divine intervention. The argument from the Church has now become one in which no life can exists without the action of God to create it.

Perhaps it is just coincidental that Cardinal Schonborn has close personal ties to some of the leading proponents in the United States of the creation 'science' movement that is now mascarading as an 'intelligent design' argument. First of all, let us get straight that although evolution is considered a THEORY, this does not mean that it is unsettled science. In the world of science, the term THEORY has much different meaning than its connotation in the everyday world. Scientific theory is defined as: "The branch of a science or art consisting of its explanatory statements, accepted principles, and methods of analysis, as opposed to practice: a fine musician who had never studied theory." Whereas most anti-evolution arguments today use the meaning: "An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture." SCIENTIFIC THEORY is not an assumption, and it is not based on LIMITED information. SCIENTIFIC THEORY represents the working principles upon which the science is based--that is, the theory represents the vast amounts of known information and data that exists as it has been compiled, and it represents the basic commonalities that drive our knowledge of the known biological world. All of modern biology uses as its basis the known principles and established facts of evolution to understand our basic make-up and to attempt to explain our past and future.

As Anthony Grafton writes in The New Yorker magazine of 25 July 2005 (p. 48-49):

In a recent column in the Times, Cardinal Schonborn of Vienna surprised those who believed that the Catholic faith had come to an accommodation with Darwin by arguing that the neo-Darwinian theory of evolution is 'ideology, not science.' To support this claim, he cited no scientific data; rather, he cited 'the real teaching of our beloved John Paul'--clear proof that he has no idea what science is, or, for that matter, ideology....There is every reason to believe that [Pope Benedict XVI] shares the Cardinal's impoverished understanding of the scientific enterprise, and that his views will shape Catholic teaching on a wide range of scientific and medical issues.

Certainly even those who believe in the essential importance of divine creation cannot reject (neo-Darwinian) evolution as the method an omniscient God would choose to form his creation. To argue that God must act in every moment to sustain this creation seems as short-sighted as to argue that the earth is flat. An all-knowing and wise God would certainly not need to act more than once to assure the essence of life (and every creature) in the universe; but, in the mind of a person with immature faith, perhaps continual action by God is necessary. A mature faith understands above all else that God works in mysterious ways and that it is beyond the ability of mankind to know the mind of God. We can only test the natural world in an attempt to discern the mechanisms in the universe through which we exist and are sustained.

In my mind, to argue whether it is God that created these mechanisms, or whether they exist because of random chance is a matter for belief while the mechanisms themselves are matters for science. It seems to me that one can believe in God and accept evolution (and the Big Bang, etc.) as God's gifts to the universe; or, one can believe in God and accept evolution, etc. as random events that occurred without the direct influence of a higher power, but that act in accord with Higher principles; or, one can be an atheist and see all of nature and the physical universe as happenstance and chance occurrence. The Roman Catholic Church would apparently add a fourth category: God created the universe, continues to take an overly active role in our everyday lives, and continues to 'manually' create every creature and plant that exists in the universe today--I'm sorry, but to me, that viewpoint makes God way too interested in the minutiae of our lives. God has always and continues to be interested in the BIG PICTURE and he leaves the little decisions and the everyday choices to us (free will) while permitting the universe that he has set in motion to expand, bring forth new worlds and new lives, and end the lives of stars, people, plants as is necessary for the overall benefit of the universe.

I'm finished now.

BUSHISM of the Day

"I want to thank you for taking time out of your day to come and witness my hanging." ---At the dedication of his portrait in Austin, TX; January 4, 2002


Uh...I'm not saying a word.

Teens Aren't Getting Enough Sleep

A team of researchers in Evanston, Illinois have determined that adolescents get as much as two hours more sleep on the weekends and during summer vacation than they do during the week while schools are in session. The research suggests that teenagers need 8 - 9 hours of sleep each night, but most only get 6 1/2 - 7 hours of sleep during the school year week. According to the study, the students were getting 8.7 hours sleep on average during the week in the month of August before the start of school.

Advocates argue that school systems should begin school later in the day, perhaps 9:30 AM, while continuing to end school at about the same time each day. The researchers and others make a compelling argument for starting late; however, the school year would inevitably need to be extended in order to make up for missing hours. Alternatively, a school could begin at 9:30 AM and end at 4:00 PM each day with a thirty-minute lunch break and continue to have six hours of instruction each day.

Seems possible to me...

U.S. Student Population Highest Ever

According to the AP, 49.6 million students attended U.S. public and private schools in 2003. That total is nearly a million more (48.7 million) students than attended school in 1970 at the peak of school enrollment for the baby boom generation.

Honestly, the 49.6 million figure comes as a surprise to me.

BUSHISM of the Day

"For a century and a half now, America and Japan have formed one of the great enduring alliances of modern times." ---in Tokyo, Japan; February 18, 2002

Well, yes...except of course for that whole Pearl Harbor/World War 2 thing...but other than that...okay, okay...as long as Japan has NOT been an Empire...does that work? Hmmmm...

Rewards for the Incompetent

Well, according to the WashPost, the two key analysts for the Army's NGIC (National Ground Intelligence Center) who argued that the aluminum tubes the Iraqis were buying in 2000 could NOT have been used for rockets were rewarded with monetary payments in 2002, 2003, and 2004. It was largely due to the findings of these two individuals that the push for war in Iraq continued throughout late 2001 and early 2002. The analysts determined that no rockets the Iraqis might produce would require such robust tubing; this could only mean that the tubing would be for nuclear centrifuges (for developing usuable nuclear material). This analysis was made by the two NGIC Army officers in spite of reports by both the U.S. Energy Department and the Internation Atomic Energy Agency that showed the Iraqis had used similar tubes in the past for rockets and that the tubes in question were not adequate for nuclear centrifuges.

In fact, we now learn that at least one analyst in the CIA suggested that the Iraqis were reverse-engineering an old Italian rocket that used the very aluminum tubes in question. This analyst requested that the CIA get the blueprints for the Italian design, but that suggestion was ignored along the chain of command because the CIA had already determined the tubes were NOT for rockets.

The real question here, however, is why the two analysts were rewarded monetarily even after it was determined their intelligence analysis was wrong, and in fact VERY BAD. The Pentagon claims the monetary supplements were for outstanding performance throughout the year, but could the rewards not just have easily have been given to them for 'finding' the 'correct' analysis?

To me, this seems especially likely coming on the heels of the "Downing Street Memo" that I discussed last week. If the U.S. intended to create the analysis that would make an invasion of Iraq most likely, then would the administration not want to reward those analysts who came up with the appropriate information, whether that information and analysis was flawed or not?

BUSHISM of the Day

"The ambassador and the general were briefing me on the -- the vast majority of Iraqis want to live in a peaceful, free world. And we will find these people and we will bring them to justice." ---October 28, 2003

BUSHISM of the Day

"The only thing I know about Slovakia is what I learned firsthand from your foreign minister, who came to Texas." ---speaking to a Slovak journalist, quoted by Knight-Ridder, June 22, 1999.

Interestingly, Bush's meeting in Texas was with Janez Drnovsek, the prime minister of Slovenia!! Slovenia/Slovakia---potato/potatoe....whoops, wrong Republican son of privilege....sorry...

Newsweek's Retraction

Newsweek has joined the ranks of the news media who play fast and loose with the facts in order to break the story. For those of you who haven't followed the saga--two weeks ago, Newsweek reported that it had obtained information from a reliable Washington source that Marines in Guantanamo Bay's detainee camp had flushed a Qur'an in a toilet during an interrogation. (The Qur'an is the Muslim holy book--a compilation of the writings of Mohammed.) After the story was released, there was rioting in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and elsewhere in the Muslim world--outrage (yet again) against the evil actions of America.

Well, it turns out that Newsweek had no confirmation on the story before they ran with it. Government officials have repeatedly denied the allegation, and Newsweek has been forced to retract its story--AFTER all the damage to America's reputation has once again occurred.

I am not suggesting that the story was not true--that, I do not know. It may well have been accurate. However, to go to print with a story that has no corroboration seems irresponsible at best, and stupid at worst. Did the editors see this as an opportunity to make a splash? to break the story ahead of their competitors? I do not know, but I hope someone at Newsweek is finding answers to those questions.

We have become a society in which the news media is so afraid of being one-upped that they are unwilling to go the extra mile to verify their facts. I love the story of All the President's Men (about the Watergate scandal and how Woodward and Bernstein broke the story for the Washington Post). In that story, Ben Bradlee (long-time news editor of the Post) refused to let anything go to print that did not have TWO confirmations...that means THREE people had to tell the reporters the same story before it could be reported. Today, one person in a position of semi-responsibility can whisper in a reporter's ear that he/she MIGHT have heard something about a Qur'an and a toilet, and the next day the story leads television newscasts, appears on the front pages of national newspapers, and shows up in newsmagazines. How have we gotten from there to here?

Newsweek should be ashamed and remorseful. Similar events have cost respected journalists their jobs. Will Newsweek punish those responsible for this fiasco? Much remains to be seen, but one thing is certain--the news media refuse to learn the lesson!

BUSHISM of the Day

"We want our teachers to be trained so they can meet the obligations, their obligations as teachers. We want them to know how to teach the science of reading. In order to make sure there's not this kind of federal -- federal cufflink." ---March 30, 2000


Does anyone else ever get the feeling that GW often loses his train of thought while he is speaking and just starts throwing words together -- almost randomly -- until he can get to another topic or another question? Maybe it's just me...

HAPPY BIRTHDAY, DUDE!! (FEELING OLD YET?)

Women in Combat

Congress is currently discussing whether to make permanent some Pentagon regulations governing the place of women in combat support units in the U.S. military. Current regulations forbid women from serving on the front lines of battle, and restrict their place among support units that serve the front lines. The big political problem now for Congress and the Pentagon is the issue of women serving in Iraq against a terrorist/insurgency force operating with guerrilla tactics--there is no front line to distinguish where women may serve and where they may not.

Some members of Congress (MCs) want to remove all female military personnel from Iraq while others just want to limit the regions in Iraq where women may serve. One problem cited for removing all women from Iraq is the already short supply of military personnel, with recruitment for the armed forces continuing to plummet.

It is my personal belief that women should be allowed to serve anywhere that men are allowed to serve. Our armed forces is an ALL VOLUNTEER service (as the Bush administration continually likes to point out). As long as women are volunteering along side men, why should they be denied the opportunity to serve their country in the same way?

As of September 30, 2003, women accounted for around 15% of Navy personnel, 15% of Army, 6% of Marine Corps, 20% of Air Force, 11% of Coast Guard, and 15% of DoD personnel. According to 1990 figures, 38% of military women were racial minorities, as compared to 28% of military men. Additionally, the percentage of jobs available to women varied substantially from service to service: Coast Guard women could serve in 100% of jobs, Air Force women could serve in 97% of jobs, Navy women could serve in 59% of jobs, Army women could serve in 52% of jobs, and Marine women could serve in only 20% of jobs. (Obviously, these numbers relate to the types of positions that require combat or close-combat support.)

If the United States were conscripting soldiers, I could understand the relunctance to place drafted women into harm's way. However, as long as the U.S. military operates a volunteer force, women should be allowed --no, REQUIRED-- to serve in the same capacities as their male counterparts. Why should this country deny equal rights and equal access to women who CHOOSE to serve their country? If this change to an equitable policy means that fewer women enlist, then the military remains a fair and volunteer force. Who is to say that a more equitable policy would not INCREASE female enlistments? At least we would distinguish ourselves from our Arab 'friends' who even refuse to let women drive cars, and we would place ourselves more in line with our Israeli 'friends' who require military service of their women as well as their men.

My two cents, anyway...

BUSHISM of the Day

"It's going to require numerous IRA agents." ---responding to a question about Gore's tax plan during the 2000 Presidential election campaign

BUSHISM of the Day

"The public education system in America is one of the most important foundations of our democracy. After all, it is where children from all over America learn to be responsible citizens, and learn to have the skills necessary to take advantage of our fantastic opportunistic society." ---May 1, 2002

BUSHISM of the Day

"See, free nations are peaceful nations. Free nations don't attack each other. Free nations don't develop weapons of mass destruction." ---October 3, 2003


Uh....hello, President Bush, this is reality calling. We think you have no clue what you are talking about on most days, but this comment....come on!!! Isn't the United States a free nation? Haven't we attacked other nations? Aren't WE the number one producer of weapons of mass destruction in the ENTIRE WORLD? Wasn't it weapons of mass destruction that were produced in the United States that Saddam Hussein originally stockpiled during his eight year war against Iran in the 1980s? Are we not currently supporting Islam Karimov in Uzbekistan, who has one of the worst human rights records in the world (as reported by our own State Department document)? Isn't the United States a free nation?

America Sleeps Through Revelation of 'Downing Street Memo'

The Sunday Times of London revealed in its May 1 edition a secret memo prepared by a British national security aide from notes made during a July 2002 meeting between Tony Blair and his national security team. Included in the memo were possible plans for dealing with the 'threat' of Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq. The memo discusses the likelihood that Saddam had WMDs (less likely, according to the memo, than the capabilities of Libya, North Korea, or Iran), likely scenarios for attack plans, the expected response by Saddam and what type of attack he was most likely expecting, and a brief notation about the intelligence-gathering process.

According to the memo, the United States believed that "military action was now...inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD." Apparently, though, the U.S. was experiencing difficulty in finding the justification demanded by Bush to satisfy his plans. As a result, "the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy." Uh, EXCUSE ME??????? Let's repeat that last bit..."the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy." Could someone please explain to me why this information has not been flooding the 'liberal media' for the last two weeks? Why did it take the Washington Post nearly two weeks to run a follow-up story with their own reporting? The Chicago Tribune and Los Angeles Times have barely mentioned it. Has the New York Times published anything related to the story? The executive branch of our government planned NINE months prior to the beginning of the Iraq War to FIX intelligence and facts to fit its pre-existing policy, and this country sits idly trusting the president and his closest advisors to do what is right for this country. WHAT DOES IT TAKE TO WAKE PEOPLE UP???

As Helen Thomas writes in her syndicated column--

I am not surprised at the duplicity. But I am astonished at the acceptance of this deception by voters in the United States and the United Kingdom.

I've seen two US presidents go down the drain – Lyndon B. Johnson on Vietnam and Richard Nixon in the Watergate scandal – because they were no longer believed. But times change – and I guess our values do, too.

"Times change and...our values do, too." We don't care that our leaders lie to us, make lucrative deals to benefit themselves, and take vast sums of money from special interest groups in violation of ethics regulations--just as long as they stop abortions and keep gay people from gettin' married!! (Oh, and by the way...conservative Republicans have controlled the White House, both Houses of Congress, and the Supreme Court for the last nine, five, and fifteen(?) years, respectively--have they ended abortion or stopped gay marriages yet? NO...and they aren't likely too, either. If they did, then what would they use to make sure you continue to re-elect them?) What has happened to our nation? Grrrrrr....

BUSHISM of the Day

"I have a different vision of leadership. A leadership is someone who brings people together." ---August 18, 2000

And wouldn't you agree that he has done just that...or is it THIS president who has been one of the most divisive 'leaderships' in the history of the United States? I forget...

Uzbekistan's Karimov--the next Saddam?

The London Telegraph calls Uzbekistan president Islam Karimov the "tyrant of Tashkent" and opposition leaders in the country refer to him as making Saddam Hussein look like "a choir boy." Is the U.S. really supporting this regime? Apparently so.

Over the weekend, some rioting broke out near the Kyrgystan border in the city of Andijan. The CBC has reported that nearly 700 people have been killed by security forces, including civilians--even women and children. While the British have forcefully condemned the actions taken by Karimov's security forces as human rights violations, the United States has been reluctant to speak out against what the Bush administration considers an ally in the fight against terrorism. The U.S. reluctance has been so great, in fact, says the London Telegraph in an editorial, that events in Uzbekistan undercut the Bush administration's call for democratization in other parts of the world.

Some comparison is being made between the U.S. support of Saddam Hussein in the 1980s and the support given to Karimov now. British Foreign Minister Jack Straw has spoken out against Karimov in the strongest words, and former British ambassador to Uzbekistan, Craig Murray, has said that the U.S. is looking for ways to dismiss Karimov's actions. Murray was removed from his post in 2004 largely for criticizing the human rights abuses of the Karimov regime. The Times of London reports that there may be as many as 6,000 political prisoners in Uzbek jails.

The U.S. State Department's most recent report of human rights abuses apparently does criticize Karimov for his actions over the last year, and State Department spokesman Richard Boucher spoke out against Karimov's history; however, very little has been said about the recent violence except that the U.S. is "'deeply disturbed' by reports that troops in Uzbekistan fired on civilians during protests in the east of the country," as reported by the BBC. Further, SecState Condi Rice has called for political reform in the country following this weekend's rioting.

It remains to be seen whether the Bush administration will push its doctrine of 'democratization' even against such a 'valuable ally' as the "tyrant of Tashkent."

BUSHISM of the Day

"I'm hopeful. I know there is a lot of ambition in Washington, obviously. But I hope the ambitious realize that they are more likely to succeed with success as opposed to failure." ---Associated Press, January 18, 2001

There he is...the master of the understatement, the obvious, and the unintended...

JLo-ISM of the Day

"If you ask me, I'd like to become the first female president. That would be really cool ... The first thing I would do is redecorate [the White House] ... It doesn't look very cozy." --Jennifer Lopez on where her ambitious career might head in the future, quoted in the May 16, 2005 Newsweek

Exactly what we need our first female president to focus on--forget women's issues, or child care, or universal health care. We need a woman who knows something about fixin' up the place!! Give me a freakin' BREAK!! Read my other post for today to see what characteristics a REAL contender for first female president should have...

Hillary Rodham Clinton

Recently the former first lady and current junior U.S. Senator from New York has taken a great deal of criticism from the right for nearly every public statement she has made. Of course the right wants to do everything it can to defeat Clinton in her 2006 race for re-election, and to do everything it can to forestall any chance the Senator might have at the Democratic nomination in 2008 (even if she doesn't run, apparently).

With approval ratings in New York (which includes not only liberal New York City, but also conservative up state New York) at nearly 70%, it is unlikely that Sen. Clinton will not receive re-election next year. In her most recent political conversion, Hillary even has former House Speaker Newt Gingrich singing her praises as a viable presidential contender in 2008. Could it be that he is looking forward to '08 himself?

Incredibly, the far right wants to portray Clinton as performing a makeover of gigantic proportions on herself. As she discusses issues from a moderate perspective, the right wants America to believe that the Senator is re-inventing herself. Those of us who better understand the Clintons (read that as those who are not part of the 'right wing conspiracy') know that both Clintons have a history of moderation that leans to the left--they are not the extreme radicals that Rush Limbaugh, Gary Bauer, Michael Savage, Bill O'Reilly, and their ilk want us to believe that they are. The Clinton's greatest sin, in the eyes of the right wing reactionaries, is that they believe in the Great Society--that they believe in the principals of democracy and equity for all. This above all is ideologically anathema to the neo-conservative mindset--only the wealthy should receive equal treatment, and only the Republican agenda deserves creedance from the 'religious community.'

Here are the words of Hillary Rodham Clinton, a lifelong Methodist, from a speech delivered twelve years ago and quoted in the May 16, 2005 Newsweek by Anna Quindlen--

"Our ancestors did not have to think about many of the issues we are now confronted with. When does life start, when does life end? Who makes those decisions? How do we dare to infringe upon these areas of such delicate, difficult questions? And yet, every day in hospitals and homes and hospices all over this country, people are struggling with those very profound issues."

As Ms. Quindlen wrote, "If the senator had made those comments last week, every story about them would suggest positioning for the presidency." In the same speech, Clinton spoke about "a 'spiritual vacuum' that government cannot begin to answer, of the thirst to 'feel that we are part of something bigger than ourselves.'

"Like most complex and intelligent people, the senator is difficult to categorize neatly: idealist and pragmatist both, a person who believes in personal freedom and personal responsibility, a moderate described as a liberal and reviled as a radical. This makes her like so many who reject either/or, who believe in both strong families and good day care, both prenatal care and the morning-after pill. It has also made it easy to demonize her by those who prefer black and white to gray (and any man to a strong woman)."

Regardless of the demonization campaign by the right wing pundits and hatchet men, shouldn't we judge Ms. Clinton (and Mr. Clinton for that matter) based on what she believes, the truths she espouses, and her plans for the future rather than what is said about her? Personally, I believe in the possibilities...

BUSHISM of the Day

"But I also made it clear to [Russian president Vladimir Putin] that it's important to think beyond the old days of when we had the concept that if we blew each other up, the world would be safe." ---May 1, 2001

I'm not sure, but I think several countries (and ethnic groups) around the world would still agree with that assessment...

BUSHISM of the Day

"It's negative to think about blowing each other up. That's not a positive thought. That's a Cold War thought. That's a thought when people were enemies with each other." ---Wall Street Journal, June 25, 2001

BUSHISM of the Day

"They want the federal government controlling Social Security like it's some kind of federal program." ---November 2, 2000

Uh...okay; so now it all makes sense. Bush wants the federal government to get out of federal programs. If we eliminate the intrusion of government into these programs, then eventually we won't need the programs at all. And maybe we won't even need the federal government; after all, it's not like Bush has INCREASED the size of the federal bureaucracy or anything....he's trying to cut the size of government, right?

BUSHISM of the Day

"Recession means that people's incomes, at the employer level, are going down, basically, relative to costs, people are getting laid off." ---February 19, 2004

From FactCheck.org---

Are Democrats Causing Delays in Court?

A new pro-Bush TV ad claims that Democrats are solely responsible for blocking judicial nominees and holding up confirmation proceedings on Bush appointees. As a result, says the ad, delays in courtroom appearances are growing longer for litigants as they wait for new judges to be confirmed. According to FactCheck.org, the truth is that Republicans share the blame for "empty courtrooms," and delays are shorter now than they were before Bush.

FactCheck's Summary of the Facts (emphasis is mine)

A multimillion-dollar ad campaign blames Democrats for the fact that "courtrooms sit empty." In fact, there are now half as many judicial vacancies as when Bush took office. And of the 46 federal judgeships that remain vacant, Bush has named only 16 replacements.

The ad also says cases are being delayed in federal courts for "thousands of Americans." Actually, official statistics show cases typically being decided more quickly now than they were in 1999, when it was Republicans opposing Clinton's judicial nominees.

Click the link for the full article: http://www.factcheck.org/article324m.html

My Take--

This is just another example of the Republican spin machine attempting to turn lies into facts. They've tried to do it with Social Security also, but the American people are not buying those lies and exaggerations. Let's hope the TRUTH about judicial nominees gets to the public as well. The biggest problem with the Republican lie machine is that major news media have begun to take up the Republican spin as fact rather than finding the truth before doing their reporting! Personally, I am tired of the conservative agenda at so many major news organizations (Fox 'News', CNN, and CNBC most especially). The conservative media needs to move back to the center and stop spouting this far-right political propaganda!

BUSHISM of the Day

"It is clear our nation is reliant upon big foreign oil. More and more of our imports come from overseas." ---September 25, 2000

This quote could have come from GW's most recent 'energy speech' just a few days ago, but it was actually nearly five years ago. We, as a nation, continue to 'be fooled' (see previous BUSHISM of the day).

BUSHISM of the Day

"There's an old saying in Tennessee--I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee--that says, fool me once, shame on--shame on you. Fool me--you can't get fooled again." ---September 17, 2002 in Nashville, TN

BUSHISM of the Day

"There's no question that the minute I got elected, the storm clouds on the horizon were getting nearly directly overhead." ---May 11, 2001


This is the one (and perhaps) only time when I have to say that I completely agree with George W. The storm clouds moved in the minute after Bush was elected the first time, and they are yet to recede. BUT this country RE-ELECTED him!!! Maybe as a nation we just enjoy stormy weather....

Extra BUSHISM of the Day

"And there's no doubt in my mind, not one doubt in my mind, that we will fail." ---October 4, 2001

BUSHISM of the Day

"One of the common denominators I have found is that expectations rise above that which is expected." ---September 27, 2000

Pope Benedict XVI

Thinking about today's installation of the new Papa, I am forced to consider his apparent extreme conservatism and how his personal history has impacted his theological views. Many critics want to cite his writings and theological pronouncements as evidence of his extreme positions, but I am willing to give the guy a break. He took his direction in these matters from Pope John Paul II. The new pope may or may not hold the same theological positions that he has defended for the last twenty years; however, one thing is certain: his pontificate will not be as long as JPII's.

It certainly seems that the Cardinals chose someone whom they could be sure would have a brief reign, who would essentially continue the last pope's work, who would keep the administration of the Vatican unchanged, and who would represent a strong transitional figure for the Church. It remains to be seen how many (if any) of these goals will be met during this pontificate.

Regardless of the eventual outcome, I am hopeful that the new pope will continue the policies of peace, ecumenism, and hope that Pope John Paul II began. Perhaps the youthful liberal who worked on Vatican II will emerge and offer some modicum of reformation for the priesthood, for women, for homosexuals, and for liberation.

The Case for Life

This past week's events in the Terri Schiavo case were traumatic for her family and for others throughout the United States who have had to make similar decisions in the past.  President Bush made the comment (I am paraphrasing) that whenever we err as a nation, we should err on the side of LIFE.  After I heard that comment, I waited for some courageous Senator to stand up in the U.S. Senate, quote the President, and propose a bill to bring our troops home from Iraq!!  Did any courageous person stand up and do so?  Of course not.  Which begs the question, "Are there any courageous people in Congress any more?"

When I hear the news that the President has proposed a budget that will essentially end Head Start, Upward Bound, Medicaid, food stamps and child-care assistance for the working poor, nutrition assistance for pregnant low-income women, and education funding (at a time when the federal government is placing additional requirements on states), I become sickened by the fact that this administration "believes in preserving life."  Isn't it ironic that the only lives the neo-cons want to preserve are the unborn and the debilitated while ignoring:  hungry children of poor families; the young men and women of our Armed Forces; wrongly convicted death-row inmates; men, women, and children suffering from AIDS, cancer, and other terminal illnesses that currently have no cure; and, the innocents who are losing their lives in Iraq and other nations of the world because of the U.S.'s incompetent management of its foreign relations and post-war planning.

At what point do we finally speak out against the evil actions of this President?  Just because the man CLAIMS a moral compass with respect to TWO emotionally charged issues does not mean that he is a MORAL man at all.  In fact, if we evaluate his performance on every moral issue--FAITH, HOPE, CHARITY, LIFE, LIBERTY--how can we say that he has any moral center at all?  I would argue that in fact, this President has the moral aptitude of a three-year old child--and that is being generous, because I am not certain he is capable of evaluating complex moral issues even at that level.

Nevertheless, I have included a commentary from Bob Herbert that I think makes my case much better than I can.  Enjoy!

From the NYTimes Op/Ed page--March 25, 2005 

The Era of Exploitation

By BOB HERBERT

Congress is in recess and the press has gone berserk over the Terri Schiavo case. So very little attention is being paid to pending budget proposals that are scandalously unfair, but that pretty accurately reflect the kind of country the U.S. has become.

President Bush believes in an "ownership" society, which means that except for the wealthy, you're on your own. The president's budget would cut funding for Medicaid, food stamps, education, transportation, health care for veterans, law enforcement, medical research and safety inspections for food and drugs. And, of course, it contains big new tax cuts for the wealthy.

These are the new American priorities. Republicans will tell you they were ratified in the last presidential election. We may be locked in a long and costly war, and federal deficits may be spiraling toward the moon, but the era of shared sacrifices is over. This is the era of entrenched exploitation. All sacrifices will be made by working people and the poor, and the vast bulk of the benefits will accrue to the rich.

F.D.R. would have stared slack-jawed at this madness. Even his grand Social Security edifice is under assault by the vandals of the G.O.P.

While the press and the public are distracted by one sensational news story after another - Terri Schiavo, Michael Jackson, steroids in baseball, etc. - the president and his party have continued their extraordinary campaign to undermine the programs that were designed to fend off destitution and provide a reasonable foundation of economic security for those not blessed with great wealth.

President Bush has proposed more than $200 billion worth of cuts in domestic discretionary programs over the next five years, and cuts of $26 billion in entitlement programs. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, which analyzed the president's proposal, said:

"Figures in the budget show that child-care assistance would be ended for 300,000 low-income children by 2009. The food stamp cut would terminate food stamp aid for approximately 300,000 low-income people, most of whom are low-income working families with children. Reduced Medicaid funding most certainly would cause many states to cut their Medicaid programs, increasing the ranks of the uninsured."

Education funding would be cut beginning next year, and the cuts would grow larger in succeeding years. Food assistance for pregnant women, infants and children would be cut. Funding for H.I.V. and AIDS treatment would be cut by more than half a billion dollars over five years. Support for environmental protection programs would be sharply curtailed. And so on.

Conservatives insist the cuts are necessary to get the roaring federal budget deficit under control. But they have trouble keeping a straight face when they tell that story. Laden with tax cuts, the president's proposal will result in an increase, not a decrease, in the deficit. Shared sacrifice is anathema to the big-money crowd.

The House has passed a budget that is similar to the president's, except it contains even deeper cuts in programs that affect the poor. In the Senate, a handful of Republicans balked at the cuts proposed for Medicaid. Casting their votes with the Democrats, they were able to eliminate the cuts from the Senate budget proposal. The Senate also added $5.4 billion in education funding for 2006.

All the budgets contain more than $100 billion in tax cuts over the next five years, which makes a mockery of the G.O.P.'s budget-balancing rhetoric. When Congress returns from its Easter recess, the Republican leadership will try to reconcile the differences in the various proposals. Whatever happens will be bad news for ordinary Americans. Big cuts are coming.

The advances in areas like education, antipoverty programs, health services, environmental protection and food safety were achieved after struggles that, in some cases, took many decades. To slide backward now (hurting millions of people in the process) because of a desire to siphon funds from those programs and hand them over as tax cuts to the wealthiest members of our society, is obscene.

This is not a huge national story. It's just the way things are. It was Herbert Hoover who said: "You know, the only trouble with capitalism is capitalists. They're too damn greedy."

E-mail: bobherb@nytimes.com

BUSHISM of the Day

"I want each and every American to know for certain that I'm responsible for the decisions I make and each of you are as well." ---September 20, 2003

See here--this is exactly the thing that scares the devil out of all of us Liberals and Progressives. We know he feels this way. He has this whole 'manifest destiny' thing going on in his head; we tried to vote him out of office, but he has the conservatives convinced that he really is one of them (when the truth is that he does not act like a conservative--just ask John McCain). Meanwhile, he has the libertarians convinced that he believes in small government and personal freedoms (his 'ownership society'), but has anyone bothered to look at the fact that he has increased the size of government more in his four years in office than Clinton ever thought about doing (actually, the liberal Clinton-Gore administration DECREASED the size of the federal government--SHOCK!!)?

I DO NOT WANT TO BE RESPONSIBLE FOR GEORGE'S REALLY BAD DECISIONS!! I DO NOT EVEN WANT TO BE PARTLY RESPONSIBLE FOR HIS GOOD DECISIONS!!! What can we do?

STOP the Chance of Drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge...

ATTENTION PROGRESSIVES -

Check out the online petition to stop possible drilling in ANWR at the following link on the John Kerry website: http://www.johnkerry.com/petition/rollcall_thankyou.html

------------------------------------
John Kerry proposed an amendment to remove from the energy bill any consideration to drill in ANWR. The amendment lost on the Senate floor by a vote of 51-49 with THREE Democrats voting against the amendment, but several Republicans voting for it. The three democrats? Mary Landrieu (LA), Daniel Inouye (HI) and Inouye's Hawaiian colleague Akaka.

The above link takes you to the Kerry online petition drive that now has over 400,000 names. Possibly the House of Representatives will vote to not allow drilling if they see the public reaction. Of course, the House has voted at least twice before to open ANWR, so the prospects are small. But go add your name to the list anyway!!
------------------------------------

Thank you!

Visit more of the JohnKerry.com website. Even though he lost the election, he continues to make use of the grassroots support that built up around his campaign to defeat GWBush.

Do Individuals Have a 'Right to Die'? ....

and if so, who gets to make that decision if the individual is incapacitated?

Those are the questions that have been argued and fought by the husband and parents of Terri Schiavo during the last eight years. Mrs. Schiavo suffered heart failure at the age of 26 and has been in a vegetative state since then. She did not have a living will, but her husband has fought to have her feeding tube removed to fulfill what he says would have been her wishes. Mrs. Schiavo's parents have been on the other side of the fight, saying that their daughter responds to them during their visits with her and they believe she can recover someday.

The courts in Florida have sided with Mr. Schiavo in nearly every situation, but the Florida legislature has passed at least two special pieces of legislation allowing Gov. Jeb Bush to order Mrs. Schiavo be kept alive against her husband's wishes. This legislation was declared unconstitutional by the Florida Supreme Court, and the U.S. Supreme Court has refused to hear appeals related to this case on at least two occasions.

Now this week, the Republican U.S. Senate and House attempted several manuevers to prevent the removal of Mrs. Schiavo's feeding tube in what became a largely politically motivated activity and one which the Democrats were unwilling to challenge. At what point does the incapacitated person's closest relative have the ability to make the decision to let the loved one die in peace? It could be argued that Mrs. Schiavo might not have survived this long if some doctor had not made the initial decision to place her on life support after her heart failure. Should not a person's life first be guaranteed dignity and respect? The political and media circus that has surrounded Mrs. Schiavo's life for the last eight years certainly cannot be misunderstood as dignity and respect.

I think we all should say a prayer for Mrs. Schiavo and her family that the turmoil they have gone through come to an appropriate end with peace and understanding on both sides. Let the woman find her rest. 'Not our will, but God's be done.'

Oil Prices Are Soaring and OPEC Can Do Nothing

Oil prices increased this week to an all-time high of $57 a barrel (not adjusted for inflation) and predictions suggest it could be as high as $60 by summer. Translate that into gasoline prices -- the current nationwide average regular price is $2.05 a gallon, and may be as high as $2.75 by the peak driving season this summer.

Economists say that American auto manufacturers may be hit the hardest. In fact, both GM and Ford are reporting surplus inventories in their SUV categories, and as gas prices increase experts predict that more people will move to buy fuel-efficient or hybrid vehicles.

OPEC announced this week that it would increase production by 500,000 barrels of oil per day (most of that to come from Saudi Arabia). Even after the announcement, gas and oil prices increased by the end of the week. Forecasters point to the high worldwide demand for oil, particularly in China where there is an on-going effort to create a 750 billion-barrel strategic reserve.

The U.S. Senate essentially voted this week to permit drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (the official vote is yet to come, but a procedural vote this week cleared the way for the official vote) and the House will in turn act soon open ANWR to drilling. Of course, the problem with opening ANWR is that at least ten years of development, construction, and drilling will have to occur before the U.S. sees any actual production results. Yes, you read that correctly--TEN YEARS that we could be making automobiles more efficient, that we could be improving our use of alternative fuels, and that we could be working to decrease our dependence on oil. Instead, we are relying on our oil President and oil-friendly Congress to make their friends and relatives in the oil industry richer by allowing them access to one of the last pristine wilderness environments in the United States.

BUSHISM of the Day

"I know what I believe. I will continue to articulate what I believe and what I believe -- I believe what I believe is right." ---in Rome, July 22, 2001

From Daily Kos

I believe that all liberals who opposed the War on Iraq prior to its inception need to read this commentary by one of the best progressive bloggers on the internet. I do not doubt that the neo-conservative mouth-pieces will feel free to use this to somehow support the right-wing position that all Liberal American thinkers are vile, evil creatures who despise their own country. However, we all know that the greatest patriots and defenders of American values have been and continue to be those individuals who stand up for the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. These are people from both sides of the political spectrum, but mostly it is the people who intuitively understand which actions our nation needs to take to ensure the survival of the republic. Read the following carefully.

The American Taliban

Once upon a time, it was easy for the American Right to smear its opponents on the left -- they could simply equate them with the nation's communist enemies. It didn't matter that the American "left" (Democrats) had more in common with the Right than international communism, the smear was useful.

Now, however, our international enemy -- Islamic radicalism -- is actually the polar opposite of what liberals stand for -- their actions on women rights are deplorable, they insist on theocracy, they loooveee torture and the death penalty, they demand to control the culture (TV, movies, music), they rail against rampant sexuality, they seek to spread their ideology via force, and they have a well-defined black-and-white sense of truth.

Remind you of a certain American party?

That's why hysterical assertions by the wingers that liberals hate America and want the terrorists to win are so absurd. As absurd as it would've been to claim that Reagan wanted the Communists to win the Cold War. The Taliban/Al Qaida/Hezbollah/Jihadists of the world are the exact embodiment of evil in the liberal mind. They are everything we are against, and against everything we are for.

In fact, they are exactly what we see in the Republican Party as the GOP continues to consolidate power -- creeping theocracy, moralizing, us versus them, embrace of torture, the need to constantly declare jihad on someone, hysterics over football-game nipples, control over "decency" on the airwaves, lyrics censorship, hostility to women freedoms, curtaling of civil liberties, and so on.

So it's pretty obvious -- we don't love terrorists. We don't want them to win. For them to win would be to realize our greatest fears. The muslim terrorist is truly the anti-liberal. Like matter and anti-matter.

Republicans, on the other hand, hate the terrorists because they're Muslim. But aside from that, they've got far more in common than they'll ever admit to themselves.

And it's high time we started to make that connection more forcefully.

Dick Is At It Again

Our illustrious Vice-President is putting words in the President's mouth again.  In an interview on Friday, Mr. Cheney stated that if Iran refused to give up its pursuit of a nuclear weapons program, the the United States would be forced to take "stronger action."

This response by Cheney comes on the same day that the U.S. agreed to drop its objections to Iran joining the World Trade Organization and that Britain and the E.U. threatened Iran with economic sanctions.  It seems that the United States, Britain, and the European Union are finally speaking with one voice in efforts to use diplomacy and U.N. sanctions to convince Iran to end its weapons ambitions; and then, out of left field, the former leader of the Project for the New American Century speaks up to say that the U.S. may just have to get tough with Iran.

Remember that it was a speech by Cheney that began the drive for War on Iraq.  Just as Colin Powell was making his arguments to Bush in private about the importance of using diplomacy in dealing with Iraq, V.P. Cheney gave a major policy speech that seemed to blindside the President -- at least according to Bob Woodard in his book, Plan of Attack.

BUSHISM of the Day

"As you know, these are open forums, you're able to come and listen to what I have to say." ---October 28, 2003

BUSHISM of the Day

"I was proud the other day when both Republicans and Democrats stood with me in the Rose Garden to announce their support for a clear statement of purpose:  you disarm, or we will."  ---Speaking about Saddam Hussein, October 5, 2002

Army Poll Shows Recruitment is Down--particularly among women and blacks

According to recent polling, U.S. military recruitment is down significantly in the last year (see a complete story at CSMonitor).  In fact, since 2000, recruiting of African-Americans has dropped over 40%.  This drop brings African-American recruitment down to 14% of new recruits from a level of 29% previously.  Interestingly enough, the 14% is a true reflection of the African-American population in the United States.  The polling shows that disagreement with the President's foreign affairs policies, and a growing fear of being sent to Iraq are two of the top reasons youth are choosing not to enlist.  An Army poll conducted last year and just recently reported declares, "recruiting an all-volunteer Army in times of war is getting increasingly difficult."  A more cynical person that I might ask, "Where will shortages in recruiting an 'all-volunteer' Army lead?  Perhaps to some sort of draft?  Or maybe more forced extensions of enlistments?"  We shall see.

BUSHISM of the day

"I understand that the unrest in the Middle East creates unrest throughout the region."  ---March 13, 2002

BUSHISM of the Day

"I've coined new words, like, misunderstanding and Hispanically." ---March 29, 2001

Sojourner's Magazine commentary from David Batstone

A short article from Sojourner's SojoMail email newsletter, written by David Batstone--an interesting take on the dangers of war and its inevitable misguided consequences.  It is sad to hear stories of any casualties, but a story such as this seems all the worse!

 

Murder mystery in Iraq

by David Batstone

My friend Kirk von Ackermann has joined the list of American casualties in Iraq. Not that long ago he was designated as "missing." He is now "presumed dead." Suspiciously so.

According to a story in last Sunday's San Francisco Chronicle, Kirk disappeared on the afternoon of Oct. 9, 2003, on a deserted road in Iraq that runs between Tikrit and Kirkuk. A tire on his car had gone flat, so he used a satellite phone to call a colleague to request a jack. When his colleague arrived about 45 minutes later, Kirk was nowhere to be found. There was no sign of struggle, not even footprints of possible assailants, which would seem to rule out a ragtag team of Iraqi resistance fighters. Robbery also is out for a motive - Kirk's satellite phone, a laptop computer, and a briefcase containing $40,000 were found left in his car, according to the article.

"It was as if he had been abducted by aliens," Ryan Manelick, another one of Kirk's colleagues in Iraq, told the Chronicle reporter. More like professional assassins, I might add. Manelick and Kirk worked for Ultra Services, a civilian contracting company that supplied U.S. troops in Iraq with essential living services (tents, toilets, etc.) and technology.

That's not the only significant observation Manelick had to make. He also shared with army investigators looking into Kirk's "disappearance" that Kirk was ready to blow the whistle on a kickback scheme that involved business operatives and a U.S. Army officer, according to the article.

Manelick voiced fears for his own safety because he also had divulged details about this scandal. "I'm in fear of my own life," he told the Chronicle reporter. "It's not Iraqis I'm worried about, either," he added. "It's people from my own country." The very next day after the interview, a car pulled up alongside Manelick's 4x4 and a gunner opened fire with a machine gun, according to the article, instantly killing him.

I first met Kirk a couple of years ago on a soccer field in Half Moon Bay, California. I was his son's soccer coach. When Kirk could get off work at his business software company, he would come out to the field to help me out with practices.

As our friendship evolved, Kirk shared with me his background as a former deputy director of intelligence for NATO operations in Kosovo. He told me that he subsequently had worked as a Pentagon advisor on counterterrorism and espionage, and had high-level security clearance. He confessed that he could not share details with me, but he was disturbed by the rise of terrorism internationally and the lack of thoughtful U.S. foreign policy that would nourish democracy and freedom abroad. One thing about Kirk: He was a true believer in the potential for America to do good in the world. In Kosovo, he was convinced that the U.S. presence had helped to stop genocide and build a fragile peace.

When Kirk told me that he was going to Iraq to work with Ultra Services, I could only guess what actual role he would be playing in intelligence and security. Early in April 2003, only weeks after the invasion, he wrote me an e-mail from Iraq, and it was flush with hope of a quick end to the conflict, yet also concern for the long-term destiny of the country:

"As I watch what appears to be the beginning of the conclusion of this conflict in Iraq, I'm struck by something that [I became familiar with] in Bosnia and Kosovo - the children. When I was in the Balkans, I always brought something along for the kids, who had suffered for reasons they simply did not understand. As I look at the Iraqi kids, I realize that [those] in their mid-20s were children when the suffering in Iraq started. After eight years of war with Iran, 12 years of sanctions, and this current war, I wonder what the children of Iraq must be thinking."

In that same e-mail, Kirk solicited my help in thinking through an economic and social development program that would offer Iraqi children a chance to build a new society. I received several e-mails over the ensuing month exuding this same passion to change the tides of an oppressive history.

As the months passed along, however, Kirk began to express a frustration and despair that other American military and business personnel did not share his lofty goals. On Oct. 6, three days before his disappearance, he wrote me the following e-mail:

"The real problem is that - not surprisingly - the [Bush] administration seems to have dramatically overestimated the willingness of corporate America to take the risks of Iraq. Other than myself, there really are no contractors operating in Tikrit, Samarra, Balad, etc.... It cannot be stressed enough that even pro-Saddam Iraqis are not anti-American. They are violently opposed to U.S. occupation forces, but not an individual American. The tribal leader in the city where Saddam was born told me, 'We have our Arab pride, we will fight, we will lose, and then we will move on. No one wanted these days, but these are what we have, although it will not forever be this way.' It's dangerous, but not like Bosnia was."

Kirk obviously could not share with me over e-mail his deeper concerns. Apparently, he was aware of a corruption scam involving U.S. military and corporate services. Perhaps he did not know what real danger he had fallen into from his own people.

My personal connection to a lost American in Iraq adds to my sense of despair over U.S. engagement in Iraq. The smell of rotting fish continues to waft its way out of Iraq - and we catch mere glimpses of the misdirection of billions of dollars passing through the likes of Halliburton, Kellogg Brown & Root, and other less-than-credible corporate enterprises. We need to head down a different road, one driven by integrity.

Kirk worried about the children of Iraq, and their future: He wrote in one of his e-mails to me: "In Bosnia and Kosovo I noticed...the eyes of the kids - knowing that they weren't likely to die anymore, but still so far from hope. Of course, kids are kids and can take a stick and a rock and make up grand adventures, but when war's ravages have subsided it often takes something to reawaken the spirit of belief, especially in young people."

Kirk was right. It is not enough to wave the flags of democracy and freedom. We must live up to their lofty standards.